It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why abortion is legal - why it is not wrong, murder or genocide.

page: 8
79
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRJ58
The creator of the universe says He hates hands that shed innocent blood. There's a lot of puffed up heathens on this website, I don't care what you think of me. Think of what the Big guy thinks of your filthy righteousness.


Can you please provide a source where the creator of the universe says this and then another independantly verified source that proves he is the creator. Or was this supposed to be taken for what it is - your opinion?




posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutlanderHuman24
One thing that I think we can all agree upon, is that none of us is absolutely sure. We don't KNOW for a FACT that abortion is or is not killing a human life/baby.

I think the word you are looking for is personhood. A legal definition not a moral or philosophical one.

As for the rest.

Human skin cells?

A human? Human - a human

Only the sloppyness of English grammar allows you this equivocation between "human" (an adjective, as in "human toe", "human ovum", "human corpse" or "human cell culture") and "humans" (a noun in its plural form). A lots of things may be human, but those which are born, alive and have a brain are humans as well. I'd say there is a big difference.

Baby?

zygote, embro fetus. ppl are free to use every day speech to the unborn and refer to it as a baby. It wouldn't be wise to use colloqualisms as evidence that a zygote is in fact a "baby" though. It certainly wouldn't be upheld in court as an argument against Roe v Wade.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by byteshertz
 


The baby has life once it's heart beats and when u deny it that...you murder it

Well when the baby is forming and u get an abortion it is still alive...u cant say that it is not alive or does not have life so yes its murder
edit on 25-2-2011 by Evanzsayz because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 11:05 PM
link   
we all start out life when the egg is fertilized. before that you wouldn't exist. preventing someone from existing is murder. it's that simple.

and you can't deny it's life, because if it was dead it wouldn't grow.

scientists are scanning mars and moons looking for signs of microbial lifeforms such as bacteria.

if science considers a single cell bacteria life, that can be killed with penicillin, how can you not consider a fertilized egg or a human embyro life.

murder is legally defined as the unlawful taking and deprivation of a human life. it doesn't specify your age, time or whether you are a cell or a 90 year old man.

what if human females laid eggs like chickens. and i went around home to home squashing those eggs. i would be charged with murder.

the parents would say i killed their kids.

all humans start out as fertilized eggs. from that first millisecond we start out life and we grow until we are old and die.

you can't cut in and say all that before doesn't count. because it isn't true.




edit on 25-2-2011 by randomname because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by byteshertz
 



It is innate, it does not even have a heart, a brain or any sign of being any more alive than a tree


But a tree is alive...how can you say a tree is not alive???

A fetus "alive" or not...there is no inbetween. A rock...is not a live...it doesn't have cells that divide and live. Each cell of our bodies is part of us, each cell is "alive"...a fetus just has fewer of them than we do. It doesn't matter if it doesn't have a heart or a brain...that doesn't define a human...DNA and only DNA can define a human. Everything else is a bodily function, some are essential for our continued existence...some are not...to pick one bodily function arbitrarily is illogical.

There is no middle ground here...it's either alive or it is not...and when it has active cell division...it is alive.

This is biology...there is no philosophical debate about it.

Answer me this...is a tadpole a frog???


An acorn is not an oak tree - although it posses the same DNA


As far as your acorn reference...the comparsion doesn't really hold true. The acorn would be better compared to the human uterus...the seed inside the acorn to the human fetus. The acorn has the DNA of the tree...the seed has it's own DNA. The seed is an early developmental stage of an oak tree...sure...it doesn't look like an oak tree yet...but DNA wise you couldn't tell the difference between a seed and an oak tree. Just like you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a fetus and a human.


And I agree with you, but that is not to say that the living human life begin's at conception.


If you agree that human life begins at conception...than you must have some reasoning as to why a fetus stilll isn't "alive". You must have some other criteria that marks that fetus as being alive...if you know for sure it isn't alive at one point...and alive and some other...there has to be SOMETHING that marks that transformation.

All I am asking is for you to define that point.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
we all start out life when the egg is fertilized. before that you wouldn't exist. preventing someone from existing is murder. it's that simple.


I had kept this argument out of the debate until now but at the end of the day murder is defined as

Murder: is the unlawful killing of another human being with "malice aforethought", and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide

Even if we ignored all the debate on life begining at conception or not. In order for it to be murder as you and the poster before you and many others have claimed - it would have to be illegal - in a lot of places in the western world it is not and in the USA it has been legal in every state since the United States Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, on January 22, 1973. Therefore no matter anyones point of view - it can not technically be called murder.

While you say "preventing someone from existing is murder. it's that simple" the truth is it is not that simple and even by the definition of murder this is incorrect. Before you start hurling abuse at me for having this point of view - remember I do not, but this is technically correct so you are going to need to provide a lot more evidence to support your point of view.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by igor_ats
 



Indeed, "human" and "alive" are not good enough qualifiers. See sperm and egg. Also see this post:


Sperm and egg do not have full human dna...left to natural processes....sperm nor egg will ever develop into a human.

You tell me...what is a good enough qualifier??? How is cold hard science not good enough for you???



Why should we grant personhood to sperms and eggs? They're both human and alive right? As for the unique DNA angle see previous link.


NO...they are not. You will find no biologist that will claim that sperm and egg are human and alive.

When was the last time a sperm or an egg by themselves developed into a human???

There is a specific point when the proccess of life begins...it's the same in every animal and plant....there is no other marker.

If you believe there is...please tell me what that criteria is.



And from your other source....unique DNA as distinguished from the parent...that is what the word "unique" means in my argument. It has to be used, or people will foolishly try to claim the fetus is just a growth in the female, similar to a tumor.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by byteshertz

Originally posted by randomname
we all start out life when the egg is fertilized. before that you wouldn't exist. preventing someone from existing is murder. it's that simple.


I had kept this argument out of the debate until now but at the end of the day murder is defined as

Murder: is the unlawful killing of another human being with "malice aforethought", and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide

Even if we ignored all the debate on life begining at conception or not. In order for it to be murder as you and the poster before you and many others have claimed - it would have to be illegal - in a lot of places in the western world it is not and in the USA it has been legal in every state since the United States Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, on January 22, 1973. Therefore no matter anyones point of view - it can not technically be called murder.

While you say "preventing someone from existing is murder. it's that simple" the truth is it is not that simple and even by the definition of murder this is incorrect. Before you start hurling abuse at me for having this point of view - remember I do not, but this is technically correct so you are going to need to provide a lot more evidence to support your point of view.



well, the nazi's passed law and implemented the mass murder of millions of jews. according to their laws it was not illegal. therefore it was not murder. that is basically your arguement. they were also thinking of sterilizing jewish woment to prevent them from having kids. in the end they decided it was cheaper and more effective to throw them in gas chambers. again since hitler was the head of state of a soveriegn nation, with international rights and customs to decide their own legal system and laws, the holocaust was not a crime and they did not commit murder. they made it illegal and a crime to for a jew to live in germany and punishment was death.

basically they were killed for trespassing. it is kind of a harsh punishment, but then again in medieval
europe you were hung for stealing a loaf of bread.

so much for humanity and governments deciding what is murder or not.


edit on 25-2-2011 by randomname because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by byteshertz
 


My only problem with your assertion is your debating when life begins. What you actually mean to debate is if its human. These are two different questions!!!!!

Heres what i mean an amoeba is a single celled organism and yes its alive. Well guess what a zygote has the same exact properties as an amoeba. So life begins at conception but is it human well that i cant answer.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by byteshertz
 


Just like in that topic, the same is true here. The potential of where you will go and what you are is the only thing that matters.

Sperm and egg have half the cells. Alon they can never become anything. Without action they will die. Indifferent to lost skin cells against a brick wall.

DNA and the fact that you will become human are the only thing that matters. Only meter-able element. Only definitive thing.

Thew soul is irrelevant in law and living is defined by the fact that those cells will become a human. Mind is irrelevant because the brain cells are there, just not yet differentiated.

You don't really have a case here. We know when life begins and when it ends by the beginning of its uniqueness and the conclusion of it. Potentiality is all that matters.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by igor_ats
 


Pro lifers are just going along with how things work!!!! if you have unprotected sex then you will mostly concieve and therefore mother nature kicks in.
Its people like you who i find hilarious because you seem to think you can justify something like abortion which takes someone to say ''yeah i'll have unprotected sex...even though i know what may happen''.
Life is created through sexual intercourse........thats all sex is so how can a woman say '' i've had sex and gave in to my urges but now i'm pregnant but i don't want it...........i want an abortion''? she can't because the whole point of sex is to reproduce!she had the right and the chance to say no but she didn't.As i said earlier,having unprotected sex is like pointing a gun at someones head and then shooting them and saying ''i didn't know that would happen so let me try and change that''...............people know what happens when they go through certain things but they have the right whether to go through with it or not,therefore,their opinions later are pointless.

Pro lifers are just switched on people and nothing would happen if certain fools would think before they took action.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 





Mind is irrelevant because the brain cells are there, just not yet differentiated.


That is not irrelevant to me. I believe that if there is no mind, we can kill it, irregardless of potential or genome. Human mind begins its existence some months after conception, and ends its existence when brain death occurs. Thus both killing such foetuses and killing brain dead patients should be allowed.


edit on 26/2/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by aero56
 


Because we're not God, Neither did we create life if God really exists.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 02:20 AM
link   
Convenienly forgetting that to kill a human or (fetus - called that becuase human makes it sound too real) is to render it dead. To kill a life is wrong no matter how much convenience or political or medical spin you put on it.

I wonder what the laws are in vaious countries where if a preganant woman was pushed down stairs and her 7 week old (fetus) was killed as a result. Anyone know what would happen to the offender? I guess you can see where I'm leading.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by RRJ58
 


You can say that with belief. Myself, on the other hand, does not believe that their is some big guy in the sky deciding our fates. That is precisely why the abortion debate is venomous. There are the people that believe that there is a higher power coordinating all things(naively, from my point of view, I might add) and the people that believe in the many other possibilities this reality presents. Myself, for example, does not believe in the omnipotent, all forgiving deity. I see it more as a neutral force that guides this existence without care for so called good or evil.

There is nothing wrong with abortion. A woman has every right to abort the life inside her body that she biologically sustains. It is as simple as that. You are not the expectant mother or father and therefore the affair is of no concern of yours. It is truly sad that people on this planet cannot ignore events in this world that have no physical or relative influence on them whatsoever.

As I stated in the thread that is opposite to this one.....This is the true cruelty.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Viking9019
Life is created through sexual intercourse........thats all sex is so how can a woman say '' i've had sex and gave in to my urges but now i'm pregnant but i don't want it...........i want an abortion''? she can't because the whole point of sex is to reproduce!


Reading that really makes me sad. Not even pointing out your clear lack of acknowledgment that not all women who get pregnant actually consented to that sex that got them there...

Sex is ONLY for reproducing? It has nothing to do with being intimate, close, expressing love? It is ONLY a mechanical means to make more people and that is it?

I am sorry but that makes me really sad to read.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by byteshertz
 


You expect us to respect you and believe everything you say when you cannot even respect those posting in this thread. You claimed to have won the argument in the second or third page but you were simply counting your chickens before they hatched. We deserve a little more respect from you, As for you insulting God and claiming for a reference, We expect one in return proving he does not exist. I have seen you attacking several members of this thread with harshly for just opposing you.

Thread title should be: Why abortion is legal......Why In not murder. This thread has in no way proved that it is not wrong. We do not want you to quote as several members have already complained about this. We want to hear your opinion. Thank you in advance.
edit on 26-2-2011 by Serizawa because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by daggyz
I wonder what the laws are in vaious countries where if a preganant woman was pushed down stairs and her 7 week old (fetus) was killed as a result. Anyone know what would happen to the offender? I guess you can see where I'm leading.


Actually, I can give you an answer to that. Recently there was a case of a man who killed his pregnant wife who was 16-20 weeks along. He was only charged with the murder of his wife and convicted of murder on only his wife.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 




Sperm and egg have half the cells. Alon they can never become anything. Without action they will die. Indifferent to lost skin cells against a brick wall.

DNA and the fact that you will become human are the only thing that matters. Only meter-able element. Only definitive thing.


Why do you consider potential to create human being that requires inaction (omission) to fulfill (embryo, requires no abortion to fulfill potential) as more important than the same potential that requires action to fulfill (man and woman, requires sex to fulfill potential)? Omission bias. You are judging action (abortion) as worse than inaction (refusing sex), even through the consequence of both is the same - no human being where there potentially could be in the future.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 


What is your opinion about embryonic stem cell therapy?

If adult stem cells from human body could be reversed by gene therapy to be exactly identical to embryonic stem cells (which would probably be accomplished in the future), thus creating embryo without sexual reproduction or conception involvedin the process, would it also have to be protected?



new topics

top topics



 
79
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join